Charlie Stenholm

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Condit), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Risk Management, Research and Specialty Crops, that did yeoman's work on the crop insurance portions of this.

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Peterson).

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the bill to provide for normal trade relations with China on a permanent basis, otherwise known as PNTR. I will focus my remarks on the potential benefits of this market opening agreement for U.S. farmers and ranchers. I believe those benefits will be significant, and I am in good company in that belief. Nine Secretaries of Agriculture who have served since John F. Kennedy support PNTR for China. But like my colleagues, my decision is much more broadly based. I believe that United States engagement with China will help persuade the Chinese to play by the rules in agricultural trade, and cause China to improve its record on human rights, labor, and environmental issues. And I am in good company in this belief as well--Billy Graham; former President Jimmy Carter; Martin Lee (champion of Democracy in Hong Kong); Dai-Ching (Chinese investigative journalist and environmentalist); all agree that the best way to improve China's performance on human rights and the environment is to engage China. benefits for agriculture china's need I have heard the argument that China, with 21 percent of the world's population and 7 percent of the world's arable land, doesn't need U.S. agricultural products. Some have stated that between 1992-1998, China exported about $4 billion more in agricultural products than it imported in each of those years. But this does not reflect the significant agricultural imports that enter China ``off the books'' through Hong Kong. If we look at agricultural trade for China and Hong Kong for the 1992-1998 period, we get a clearer picture of the full potential of the Chinese market. According to the U.N. Trade Database, China and Hong Kong annually imported about $5.5 billion more in agricultural products than they exported. If you include fish and forestry, China and Hong Kong's net annual deficit in agricultural imports was even larger--$6.9 billion. And these numbers do not reflect the predicted growth of China's middle class, and its increased demand for meat and other agricultural products. USDA's Economic Research Service [ERS] and private United States agricultural commodity groups believe that China will continue to be a major market for United States agricultural products, and that China's accession to the WTO will expand that market. summary of china's wto agreement With regard to the agricultural products that U.S. producer groups identified as priority items, the average tariff will fall from 31 percent to 14 percent. This means that these United States agricultural products will face less than half the tariff they currently face in the Chinese market. China has agreed to end import bans and its discriminatory licensing system for bulk commodities, including wheat, corn, cotton, rice, and soybean oil. China has also agreed to establish a WTO consistent tariff-rate quota [TRQ] system with in-quota tariffs of 1-3 percent. Specific rules for the administration of these TRQs, and a percentage of trade reserved for non-state trade, will help to ensure the quotas get filled, and will increase demand for U.S. agricultural products. All of this ensures an initial minimum level of access for wheat, corn, cotton, rice, and soybean products--that will increase as the agreement is fully implemented. China's commitment on export subsidies means that United States exports of corn, cotton, and rice will not compete with subsidies from the Chinese government in third country markets, such as South Korea, Malaysia, and Indonesia. China's commitment to cap and reduce domestic subsidies will reduce incentives to overproduce. China's commitment to provide greater transparency with regard to its domestic subsidies will increase predictability with regard to China's agricultural production. China has also agreed to abide by the WTO agreement on Sanitary and Phyto-sanitary regulation, and has already implemented rule changes that have allowed imports of United States citrus, wheat, and meat. China has also agreed that the United States may continue to use its anti-dumping methodology for 15 years, and has agreed to an additional ``product-specific'' 12-year safeguard provision. Together, these provisions give U.S. producers a level of protection above and beyond that provided for under normal WTO rules. Finally, China has agreed to allow any entity to import most products into any part of the country within 3 years of accession, and to liberalize distribution services for agricultural products. This means United States companies will be allowed to market their products in China. Let's look at the potential of this agreement for some specific commodities. For cotton, China committed to a tariff-rate quota of 743,000 tons for cotton in 2000, increasing to 894,000 in 2004. The within-quota duty would be 4 percent and the over-quota duty would decline from 69 percent in 2000 to 40 percent by 2004. Nonstate trade companies get \2/3\ of the quota, which means we help avoid the problem we have sometimes had in the past with quotas going unfilled. USDA's Economic Research Service [ERS] projects that if China did not join the WTO, it would import cotton worth $565 million in 2005. If China does join, ERS projects that its cotton imports would increase to $924 million by 2005. That's why National Cotton Council President Ronald Rayner congratulated U.S. negotiators on the agricultural agreement, stating that it will ``benefit the U.S. cotton industry with greater access to the Chinese market and a promise of less subsidization by the Chinese''. For corn, China committed to establish a 4.5 million ton tariff rate quota in 2000, rising to 7.2 million by 2004. Within quota imports would be subject to a 1 percent duty, and over-quota duties would be 77 percent in 2000, dropping to 65 percent by 2004. Nonstate trade companies get \1/4\ of the quota in 2000 rising to 40 percent by 2004. ERS projects that China's net imports of corn in 2005 will increase by $587 million, if it joins the WTO. United States exports to China have averaged about 47 million bushels over the past 5 years. The National Corn Growers Association states that ``we have an opportunity to triple that average if, when China joins the WTO, the United States is prepared to grant China permanent normal trade relations.'' The Corn Growers add: ``China's impressive growth in national income is projected to lead to increased consumption of food and fiber. At the same time, growing resource constraints on agricultural production are making China increasingly reliant on trade.'' For wheat, China committed to a tariff-rate quota of 7.3 million tons in 2000, rising to 9.64 million in 2004. In quota duty would be 1 percent and out of quota duty would be 77 percent in 2000, falling to 65 percent by 2004. Nonstate trade companies get 10 percent. ERS projects that China's net imports of wheat in 2005 will increase from $231 million to $773 million, if it joins the WTO. What does the National Association of Wheat Growers say?: ``The United States market is currently open to China; this agreement serves to open the Chinese market to American products and services. This agreement will give United States wheat producers a far greater sales opportunity to a country with 1.2 billion consumers, with a potential 10 percent increase in total annual United States wheat exports.''. For soybean products, China has agreed to a tariff rate quota of 1.72 million tons of soy oil in 2000, rising to 3.26 million in 2005. The in-quota duty is 9 percent and over-quota duty is 74 percent in 2000, falling to 9 percent in 2006. Nonstate traders get half the quota in 2000 and 90 percent by 2005. ERS projects that China's net imports of soybean products in 2005 will increase by $180 million, if it joins the WTO. Here's what the American Soybean Association has to say: ``ASA strongly supports WTO membership for China, and urges Congress to extend permanent NTR status to China.'' conclusion Overall, the Economic Research Service concludes that China's implementation of its WTO obligations between 2000 and 2004 will add $2 billion to the bottom line for United States farmers and ranchers in 2005. And ERS is not alone in its view. According to Worldwatch's Lester Brown, China's water supplies in its grain-producing areas are falling at a high rate. Brown sees massive grain imports and growing dependence on U.S. grain. A report dated May 23, 2000 from Kyodo News International confirms Brown's story, stating ``A severe drought in northern and eastern China threatens millions of hectares of crops and is causing widespread drinking water shortages.''. The total area affected is about 31 million acres. The Farm Bureau also expects great benefits from China's accession to the WTO: ``U.S. exports to the Asian region as a whole are expected to increase in the next few years as a result of China's accession into the WTO. This is likely to occur as Chinese consumption levels increase, domestic production patterns skew more to global prices, China ceases to employ export subsidies, and there is a commensurate decline in Chinese agricultural exports to the Asian region. While this agreement may be with China, it will have impacts far beyond Chinese borders.'' To put ERS numbers on China into context, I will mention another number, and that is the amount farmers and ranchers lost in 1996 due to various U.S. economic sanctions placed on countries around the world. According to the ERS, we lost half a billion dollars in 1996 due to those sanctions. But that is less than a fourth of the $2 billion ERS says we will lose in 2005 if we do not grant China permanent normal trade relations. All six of the countries currently under sanctions (Cuba, Iran, Iraq, Libya, Sudan, and North Korea) together import only $7.7 billion in agricultural products each year. That's about half of the $14 billion worth of agricultural products China imports annually. Fortunately, we are moving in the right direction in our policy on sanctions, and the administration's changes last year have allowed sales of corn to Iran and wheat to Libya. Let's move forward on China too, and stop giving away agricultural markets to our competitors. And let's do so just because this is a good deal for farmers and ranchers. Let's think about what the Billy Graham Center has to say about permanent normal trade relations with China. And, by the way, they are the ones who coordinate services for more than a hundred Christian organizations involved in service in China. They say that denial of PNTR will ``seriously hamper the efforts of Christians from outside China who have spent years seeking to establish an effective Christian witness among the Chinese people''. I urge your support for permanent normal trade relations with China.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I want to take this 5 minutes to respond to one of the arguments that I have heard against permanent normal trade relations with China. The argument is that China, its 1.3 billion citizens, and only 7 percent of the world's arable land, does not need United States' agricultural products. USDA's Economic Research Service and private agricultural commodity groups believes China will continue to be a major market for U.S. agricultural products and that China's accession to the WTO will expand that market. For cotton, China committed to a tariff-rate quota of 743,000 tons for cotton in the Year 2000, increasing to 894,000 tons in 2004. The within-quota duty would be 4 percent and the over-quota duty would decline from 69 percent in 2000 to 40 percent by 2004. Nonstate trade companies get two-thirds of that quota, which means we help avoid the problem we have sometimes had in the past with quotas going unfilled. The ERS projects that if China did not join the WTO, it would import cotton worth $565 million in 2005. If China does join, ERS projects that its cotton imports would increase to $924 million by 2005. For corn, China committed to establish a 4.5 million ton tariff rate quota in 2000, rising to 7.2 million by 2004. Here again, ERS projects that China's net imports of corn in 2005 will increase by $587 million if China joins the WTO. U.S. corn exports to China have averaged about 47 million over the past 5 years. This will increase. For wheat, China committed to a tariff rate quota of 7.3 million tons in 2000, rising to 9.64 million in 2004. ERS projects that China's net imports of wheat in 2005 will increase from $231 million per year to $773 million if it joins the WTO. For soybean products, the story goes on. ERS projects that China's net imports of soybean products in 2005 will increase by $180 million if China joins the WTO. Now, ERS is not alone in the view that China will have to be buying agricultural commodities. According to Worldwatch's Lester Brown, China's water supplies in its grain-producing areas are falling at a high rate. He sees massive grain imports and growing dependence on U.S. grain. The Farm Bureau also expects great benefits from China's accession to the WTO. U.S. exports to the Asian region as a whole are expected to increase in the next few years. I would like to conclude my remarks tonight by putting all of these facts and figures into context. For years, we in agriculture have complained about the use of unilateral sanctions to change the behavior of various governments around the world. Recently, we have made some progress on this front, with some restrictions lifted last year that have resulted in sales of some corn to Iran and wheat to Libya. If we look at what USDA estimates that we in agriculture lost because of the United States' own decision not to trade with certain countries, the total in 1996 was about $500 million. The estimates for this year have to be considerably more than $500 million. That is less than a third of the $1.7 billion we will lose in 2005 if we do not grant China permanent normal trade relations. All six of the countries currently under sanctions, Cuba, Iran, Iraq, Libya, Sudan and North Korea, together, import only $7.7 billion in food and agricultural products each year. That is about half the $14 billion China imports today annually. We need to make the right decision on China and stop giving away agricultural markets to our competitors. That is what those of us who support treating China as our competitors do. What sense does it make today for the United States to unilaterally say to any country that we will not sell them our food and medicine, when our ``friends'' sell to that country? That is something that I have failed to understand in some of the arguments against PNTR. It is one thing if we multilaterally, if all of our ``friends'' also agree to use food and medicine as a weapon. That would be a powerful tool. But to do it unilaterally, it seems to me, only punishes our own producers, in this case farmers and ranchers, and it hurts the people of which we are trying to help, and it strengthens the governments of which we are trying to change. I hope that this and other statements we will hear over the next few days will convince at least 218 of us in this body to do the right thing, to grant permanent normal trade relations with China, to allow them to come into the WTO, and, for the first time in history, have them subjected to the same laws that apply to the rest of the free world. It sure cannot hurt to try it.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this bill. It is not a perfect bill, but it is a good bill. I would like to focus my comments on a provision that I have supported since I came to the Congress, a sunset requirement that requires Congress to review all programs at least every 10 years. The bill also provides that any new program created by Congress ought to have its authorization limited to no more than 10 years. There is no provision in H.R. 853 that would terminate any current programs under any circumstances. I cannot understand why some of my colleagues are opposing such a common sense requirement. I am very disappointed that some have resorted to scare tactics, suggesting that this bill would somehow threaten veterans' programs, student loans, Social Security, or Medicare. The bill does no such thing. It simply requires that we, as Members of Congress, do our job in reviewing Government programs, see what is working, see what is not working, figure out what needs to be changed, what else we should be doing at least once every 10 years. The Committee on Agriculture already lives with this requirement. Every 5 years we have a farm bill. This requirement that the farm bill be reauthorized every 10 years does not threaten agricultural programs. I do not see why some suggest this bill does. Support it.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) for yielding me this time, and I rise in opposition to H.R. 701. Mr. Chairman, all members who care about fiscal responsibility should oppose this legislation on budget grounds alone. It continues the dangerous trend of putting more and more spending on automatic pilot outside the regular appropriations process. According to the Congressional Budget Office, H.R. 701 would increase mandatory spending by $7.8 billion over the next five years without offsets as required by our budget rules. The spending in this bill places yet another claim on the projected budget surplus before we have established a plan to pay off our debt and deal with the challenges facing Social Security and Medicare. While I commend the gentleman from Alaska and California for doing something about the lack of resources for things like coastal restoration and preservation of our historic treasures, I am also disappointed by the way they're gone about providing funding for these areas. By providing a mandatory spending stream outside of the appropriations process, we're shortchanging important conservation work, not to mention other priorities such as prescription drug coverage, veterans' healthcare or rural development funding. For those of you who want more acreage in the Conservation Reserve Program and the Wetlands Reserve Program, you're made that even harder by taking this money out of the normal appropriations process and ensuring that the programs funded by H.R. 701 receive a higher priority than CRP or WRP. You've also ensured that the 1500 small watershed projects needing nearly $1.5 billion in funding will continue to wait. Not to mention diminishing the chance of providing discretionary funding for the needed $500 million in rehabilitation work on existing PL-566 structures. For those of you who've sent letters to your constituents telling them that you'll be working for more funds for the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP), you'll have to change that response if you support H.R. 701. The agriculture subcommittee once again limited the amount of funding available in EQIP to provide spending for other agriculture programs as they struggle with unrealistic spending allocations. I appreciate that the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Resources Committee were able to accommodate the Agriculture Committee's concerns about establishing a new conservation easement program at the Department of the Interior instead of utilizing the existing Farmland Protection Program. The Farmland Protection Program operated by the Department of Agriculture's Natural Resources Conservation Service and provides funding to state programs designed to protect cropland, pastureland, rangeland and forestland from conversion. I remain concerned however that we could not convince the Resources Committee to provide assistance to the Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program (WHIP), another existing program within the Department of Agriculture that has exhausted its funding. I remain skeptical about the potential landowner interest in the new ``Endangered and Threatened Species Recovery'' program created in title seven of H.R. 701. As I said earlier, I applaud the gentlemen from the effort they've made to address some serious unmet needs--needs that have not been discussed and prioritized because of a lack of leadership in putting our fiscal house in order. However, I cannot condone the means they have used to address the funding challenges facing us.

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg) for yielding me this time, and I must say this debate is absolutely phenomenal. All of the arguments that are being made about the automatic spending are precisely why I oppose the bill. Not because I do not support the conservation, all of the wildlife, all of the good things that are in it. But remember, 2 years ago we came before this body and we took highway spending off budget. Last year we took aviation off budget. Now we are taking conservation off budget. We are creating new entitlement programs, and I do not know how many times I have stood on this floor and listened to people say we have just got to stop and restrain entitlement spending. But, Mr. Chairman, because it is a good purpose, and who can argue against all of the good things that are in this bill? But no matter how we color it, spending is spending. And no matter how many times we talk about the good parts of legislation, ultimately we are going to have to make some decisions. And this amendment today does not say we cannot spend it. It just says that we have got to look at what actually is happening in the year in which we are going to be appropriating for various conservation programs and say whether the money is there or not. If it is not there without touching Social Security, we cannot do it. How many times have we unanimously agreed on both sides of the aisle we are not going to touch Social Security? But now tonight we are going to put automatically in place, on auto pilot, something that will spend $3 billion a year no matter what. We are going to wake up here maybe next year, maybe the year after, maybe the year after that, maybe in 4 or 5 years, but sooner or later the chickens are going to come home to roost. And we can say all we want to say about the merits of it. I agree with all of my friends on both sides of the aisle that are absolutely, totally in favor of this legislation. But it really bothers me when we continue, year after year, to put new programs on auto pilot and then we are going to come back to the American people and say we are for balancing the budget, we are for not doing anything to Social Security. In the meantime, we have not done anything to protect Social Security. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the gentleman's amendment. He is right on target.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I, like the previous speaker, rise in strong opposition to the rule on the Conservation and Reinvestment Act of 1999 because it allows the continuation of the pattern of fiscally irresponsible legislation that will squander our opportunity to retire the national debt and deal with social security and Medicare. The legislation that this rule will allow is the latest in the series of bills that will drain the projected budget surplus drip by drip without regard for the consequences. In setting national priorities, Congress has the responsibility to carefully assess each program. Creating a new Conservation and Reinvestment Act fund with a mandatory spending stream will exempt these funds from the scrutiny that all other programs must endure. This would further erode the integrity of the budget as a tool for fiscal accountability and constrain the options of future policymakers by locking in an ever-increasing share of Federal spending. According to the Congressional Budget Office, H.R. 701 would increase mandatory spending by $7.8 billion over the next 5 years without offsets, as required by budget rules. As a result, the spending in this bill places yet another claim on the projected budget surplus before we have established a plan to pay off our debt and deal with the challenges facing social security and Medicare. Despite all this, the rule for this legislation casually waives the Budget Act to allow us to rush forward with fiscally irresponsible tax and spending legislation. Regardless of one's views of the merits of the provisions in the bill, all Members who care about fiscal responsibility should oppose this rule, oppose this legislation, vote no on the rule, and let us stay on track for protecting social security, paying down our national debt, and maintaining a fiscally sound direction for our country.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this legislation today. From an agricultural perspective, the Carousel Retaliation provision will strengthen the enforcement mechanisms in the WTO dispute resolutions, such as the recent beef hormone and banana disputes. The achievement of permanent status for the U.S. Trade Representative agricultural ambassador so that agriculture will remain high on USTR's agenda is a very positive aspect of this legislation. From a textile standpoint, one of the controversies that has been worked out, it is now supported by the National Cotton Council, the American Apparel Manufacturers Association, the National Retailers Association, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the Central American and Caribbean Textiles and Apparel Council, and the countries of the affected region. The CBI parity portion of the conference report will increase demand for U.S. cotton and textile competitiveness. It enables the U.S. cotton industry to partner with Caribbean countries to produce more competitive apparel products, thus increasing demand for U.S. cotton fabric and yarn. This partnership will allow the U.S. cotton industry to compete with imports from Asia as import quotas are phased out over the next 5 years, and it is truly a partnership between Africa and the Caribbean nations, which is one of the strengths of this bill. Only apparel products that contain fabric formed with U.S.-manufactured yarn or are knit in the region using U.S. yarn are eligible for the treatment under the CBI provision. The Africa portion under the conference report caps trade preferences on apparel from Africa and protects against import surges and transshipment, one of the strengths of the upcoming PNTR agreement with China. In general, this promotes economic and political stability in Africa and the Caribbean nations through trade instead of aid, making the most of scarce Federal resources. It is a good bill.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, unfortunately this budget is not about the past. It is about the future. Any way we want to explain it, the centerpiece of this budget resolution today is a massive tax cut at the expense of debt reduction, Social Security, agriculture and defense. The numbers do not lie. It is gratifying to hear my friends on the other side adopting the Blue Dog rhetoric about the importance of paying off the debt. I only wished their resolution carried through on what they say. Once they take away all the double counting in this resolution, it would leave only $12 billion of the non-Social Security surplus, approximately 8 percent, for debt reduction over the next 5 years. That is $73 billion less than the Blue Dog budget and $430 billion less debt reduction over the next 10 years, and that is a fact. No rhetoric is going to change that. I wish they paid more attention to what the tax cut does in 2010 to 2014 when the Social Security system is going to need this money. This budget and this tax cut, if it is implemented, which fortunately I do not believe it will be, will wreck the Social Security program beginning in 2014, and that is irresponsible. Also, the budget provides money for another short-term agricultural relief package, which we all appreciate; but why did we not take the opportunity, as the Blue Dog budget suggested, of having a 5-year, fix- the-policy, look-at-the-baseline problem? Why are we doing a 1-year fix again? Why can we not find the support on both sides of the aisle to match our rhetoric with the needs of the country? When we look at the agricultural needs today, this budget comes up tremendously short. The American people continue to tell us that paying off the debt should be our first priority using the budget surplus. Over and over and over they tell us that. Unfortunately, this budget continues to ignore this message from the American people, and I am very disappointed that once again we have not been able to find a responsible middle ground, but that is what this is all about. If the priorities are a massive tax cut at the expense of debt reduction, Social Security, agriculture and defense, vote for this resolution.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, I do so for purposes of clarifying if the original colloquy that I had a moment ago still applies to the amendment in the nature of a substitute that you have placed at the desk?

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Clayton).

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3615. H.R. 3615 was introduced on February 10, 2000, and was referred to three different committees, Judiciary, Commerce and Agriculture. The House Committee on Agriculture unanimously approved this bill on February 16. The Committee on Commerce approved their version on March 29. The Committee on the Judiciary was discharged from consideration on March 31. The legislation before us today is a compromise between the agriculture and commerce committees. The bill establishes a loan guarantee program within the United States Department of Agriculture Rural Utilities Service for the purpose of providing local broadcast television signals. This bill under consideration today was originally included as a provision in the Satellite Home Viewer Improvement Act that was enacted last year. Unfortunately, these provisions were deleted from the final version of the bill. The Satellite Home Viewer Improvement Act permits satellite companies to retransmit local network signals back into its local market area and gives consumers greater access to network television stations by allowing satellite television companies to effectively compete with cable television providers. Today's rural Americans do not benefit from the competition provided in the Satellite Home Viewer Improvement Act. DirecTV and Echostar, the U.S.'s only satellite television providers, will not offer local-into- local broadcast television service in rural television markets. The loan guarantee proposed by H.R. 3615 will make it technologically and financially feasible for entities to develop technologies that will bring local-into-local broadcast television service to smaller rural television markets. I am pleased that cooperative lenders such as CoBank and the National Rural Utilities Cooperative Finance Corporation are eligible to participate in the loan guarantee program under section 4(d) of the bill. Their expertise, capacity, capital strength, and experience in providing financing to rural utility service borrowers should help to make this program a success. People living in rural areas need to have access to their local broadcasters' programming, local news, weather, sports, and, most importantly, emergency information services. Local television is one of our most vital safety information sources in times of natural disasters or other emergencies. This legislation promises to both improve consumer quality of life and more importantly save lives. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman very much for that assurance. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that these cooperative lenders are eligible to participate. Their demonstrated expertise, capacity, capital strength, and experience in providing financing to rural utility bars should help to make this program a success. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Mr. STENHOLM. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, I understand that this version of the substitute has been changed in section 4 from the version of the substitute approved by the Committee on Rules. Mr. Speaker, can the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) please reassure me that cooperative lenders, such as CoBank and the National Rural Utilities Cooperative Finance Corporation, are still eligible to participate in the loan program under this bill?

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I rise again in support of the bill and associate myself with the remarks of the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) regarding the intent and want to use this time to perhaps clarify a few points that have been made, I believe, erroneously through no intent. There has been a lot of quoting of newspaper articles and various interpretations of an OIG report that wrongfully implied that electric cooperatives were holding $11 billion in a portfolio consisting of financial instruments which was interpreted to mean stocks, bonds, and mutual funds. There has also been an implying that the rural utility service has not been a good steward of taxpayer dollars. If my colleagues will check the record, they will find that the telecommunications program or the rural utility service has never incurred a default regarding loss of taxpayer funding. The electric distribution and water programs have incurred write-offs of less than 1 percent over their entire history of operation. Let me just quickly talk about this $11 billion in cash or assets that supposedly could be redirected and financed, in this case, telecommunications. $2.5 billion of that is patronage capital. That is monies owned by the members of the cooperatives that are invested in the distribution and transmission lines that provide electricity and telephone service. $795 million are capital term certificates which form a pool of funds for long-term loans for cooperative lending. $2.3 billion is in accounts receivable which are bills issued by cooperatives that are not yet paid by customers. $2 billion of this $11 billion is in operating capital. It is deemed a minimum prudent reserve level by utility accounting standards held by the distribution utilities. $2.8 billion of this $11 billion alleged dollars is in operating capital that is deemed a prudent reserve held by the power supply cooperatives. These are just some of the investments that rural electrics and rural telephone cooperatives have today. What are they doing with it? Nine hundred and thirty electric cooperatives have invested $75 billion for 32,254 megawatts of generating capacity and 2,281,351 miles of line, which accounts for approximately half of the distribution lines in the United States. I think it is grossly unfair of those who have been misinterpreting an OIG report for purposes of this particular bill. This bill is good in its intent. The rural utility service will continue to prudently manage taxpayer dollars, and the rural communities will be benefited, as has already been stated by this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remainder of my time.

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, might I inquire what would be the order of closing.

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 additional minute to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Emerson).

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Mr. STENHOLM. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.

Mr. STENHOLM. I thank the gentleman for those comments. Just as I was about to say, I have no doubt that the USDA agencies and their partners, the conservation districts and resource conservation and development councils, are already taking an active role in many of the actions springing out of the Chesapeake Bay Agreement. I concur. In fact, one of the major roles of USDA in the conservation district is to provide technical assistance to whoever might need it. Whether it is technical assistance or other types of assistance, the USDA agencies and their partners have and will find ways to provide that assistance to whoever might be asking, whether they be a private individual, a nonprofit group, or a local government. I am also concerned about this legislation and similar bills that are targeted to specific geographic locations. I am certain they are all worthy pieces of legislation, and I support the gentleman and the others in the Chesapeake Bay's effort because they are right on target. My concern is the duplication. I appreciate the watershed approach. That is the way to go. I am joining today with the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Tanner) in introducing the Fishable Waters Act, which would provide much needed guidance and funding to any and all States to address water quality problems that have led to fisheries habitat problems. My concern, though, is funding. When we continue to divide, issue after issue, when we continue to say USDA, that is doing a wonderful job, but not doing good enough, so therefore, we are going to take EPA and we are going to grant them money to provide technical assistance when we are already shortchanging, here. We talk about the environmental quality incentive program. It is funded at $200 million a year, but we only spend $174 million. Appropriations cut us short. We look at the Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program. The small watershed program is the one, though. We have 1,630 projects right now approved, needing $1.5 billion in funding. We are funded at $91. I believe this bill further divides already scarce resources, and that is my concern. Mr. Chairman, CRP--Authorized at 36.4 million acres--currently 31 million acres enrolled--up to 3.5 million acres in bids received in 20th sign-up; WRP--Authorized at 975,000 acres--estimated to have 935,000 acres enrolled by end of 2000; Wildlife Habitat Incentives Progam--Funded at $50 million in 1996 Farm Bill and funding already exhausted; PL-566 (Small Watershed Program)--1630 projects approved needing $1.5 billion in funding--funded at $91 million in FY00; and EQIP (Environmental Quality Incentives Program)--Funded at $200 million per year in 1996 Farm bill--appropriators have limited funding to $174 million in each of last three fiscal years--demand is three times greater than available funding.